Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (407024)	8/15/2008 11:37:24 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

Just claiming that experts have that view, without actually supporting that, is an intellectually dishonest argument. Your sentence is ambiguous, so I'm unsure what you mean. If a person is an expert then relying on that person's opinion is a legitimate form of debate. Our entire judicial system is built on just that. Of course you can have your experts and I can have mine; but for most of the subjects we discuss here, there is no expert on this thread and we are thus forced to rely on the views of others, else, the thread would be even more worthless than it is. Almost all of it is based on inflammatory language and supposition. Talk about innuendo! This is your favorite tactic -- make a claim, but make no reference to any specific point. A blanket bash without the slightest support. If you have complaints about something I've said feel free to post them, but be specific. Otherwise, these conversations just run on indefinitely. Please, just tell me what you disagree with that I've said about Obama. For example, I've said he flip-flopped on innumerable issues, if you disagree, pick one of the issues I've criticized him for and tell me how I'm wrong. I've referred to his in-depth relationships with terrorists, and you disagree. So explain the basis for your disagreement. Do not just bash the messenger without backing up your position. ou generally start off with the statement that terrorism has declined. Actually, I generally start off with the claim that the United States is a safer place as a result of Bush's management of the situation. Nor is it self-evident. We have only had two events that fit your criteria. It actually is, if you follow this subject at all. Airports are safer from terrorists than ever. While our ports have been bashed, the reality is they are safer than ever. Same is true with chemical and nuclear plants. Now, if you want to just count actual attacks, you can do that, but that is not getting to the point of the question, which is whether we're safer or not. Also, if you are going to count the attacks, it is necessary to also consider those that would have happened had our government not acted to prevent them.